2008967 (Refugee)

The applicant sought review of a decision to refuse a protection visa. The applicant claimed a well-founded fear of persecution in Fiji based on his outspoken criticism of the government, which he alleged would lead to apprehension, detention, and sexual harassment. He also claimed that economic hardship and lack of educational and employment opportunities in Fiji necessitated his desire to remain in Australia.

The court was required to determine whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for one of the five prescribed reasons under section 5J(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), and if there was a real chance of persecution upon return to Fiji. Alternatively, the court had to consider whether there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to Fiji, the applicant faced a real risk of suffering significant harm under section 36(2A) of the Act.

The court considered documentary evidence, including country information from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT). DFAT reports indicated that Fiji is an upper-middle-income country with available education and employment opportunities, although the COVID-19 pandemic had caused economic disruption. While acknowledging some limitations in enforcement of minimum wage laws and potential delays in the judicial system, the reports did not substantiate claims of widespread arbitrary detention or a lack of state protection against societal harassment. The court found that the applicant had not demonstrated a well-founded fear of persecution for any of the prescribed reasons, nor a real risk of significant harm upon return to Fiji. The applicant's desire to remain in Australia was primarily motivated by seeking better employment and educational opportunities, which did not meet the threshold for protection.

The decision under review was affirmed.